Anyone remember the Montana man who was displaying a firearm near a school? Montana law did not exempt him from federal law.

[dogtown tom]

How would they get their FFL renewed by the ATF if they are fundamentally operating in an illegal area per GFSZ?

Your premise is flawed.
Private property is not covered by the GFSZ Act.

Essentially every patron who leaves the establishment is violating the law.

Read the exceptions:
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container,

Odds are, that new gun you just bought is unloaded. Put it in the trunk and lock it.

Heck, even the FedEx driver delivering guns to the shop is violating the law.

FedEx trucks have locking doors.

Like I said, it's not passing the smell test.

For sure, this law stinks.

 

[jdc1244]

Yet another good reason to have a concealed weapon license even if not required by one's state to carry concealed.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Your premise is flawed.
Private property is not covered by the GFSZ Act.



Read the exceptions:
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container,

Odds are, that new gun you just bought is unloaded. Put it in the trunk and lock it.


FedEx trucks have locking doors.


For sure, this law stinks.

It not so simple...

In this shop's location, patrons and delivery folks MUST cross public property (sidewalk and alley) to access the shop. There is no other way to enter the building from available parking spaces.

 

[dogtown tom]

It not so simple...

In this shop's location, patrons and delivery folks MUST cross public property (sidewalk and alley) to access the shop. There is no other way to enter the building from available parking spaces.

But that has nothing to do with how an FFL is issued or renewed. I thought that was the point of your post.

 

[.455_Hunter]

But that has nothing to do with how an FFL is issued or renewed. I thought that was the point of your post.

At least with my experience in the ATF FEL side of things, the suitability of your location for operations is absolutely a consideration with issuance and maintenance of a license. If your customers must break federal law to access your business, that would be addressed in your application review.

 

[dogtown tom]

At least with my experience in the ATF FEL side of things, the suitability of your location for operations is absolutely a consideration with issuance and maintenance of a license. If your customers must break federal law to access your business, that would be addressed in your application review.

FEL may have "suitability" requirements in regards to location, FFL does not. As long as the licensee can lawfully conduct business from his licensed premises he will get his license.

Other than Metcalf, I haven't found any other case where the GFSZ Act was the sole charge. All others were tacked on to other criminal charges.

 

[JohnKSa]

In this shop's location, patrons and delivery folks MUST cross public property (sidewalk and alley) to access the shop. There is no other way to enter the building from available parking spaces.

I understand what you are saying and where you are going, but your premise is flawed. Just because it's hard to comply with a law doesn't mean that the law doesn't restrict what it says it restricts. Just because enforcement for a particular crime is rare or even almost non-existent doesn't mean that there's no law against it or that the law must be interpreted differently due to the level of enforcement.

For years, in TX (before the initial CHL bill passed), if you bought a handgun, per state law there was no clear way to get it home legally. There were some exceptions in the law for things like traveling and going to sporting events that involved that particular type of handgun, but the way the law was written, you were technically breaking the law as soon as you left the store's property and were still in violation until you got home. The handgun had to be locked up and unloaded or you were in violation. And no, there were no FFLs denied in TX because it was very tricky to get a handgun home from the store without breaking the law.

The issue then and in this case is enforcement. The cops weren't standing around outside TX stores that sold firearms waiting to arrest people who bought handguns--they COULD have but they didn't. The feds aren't staking out school zones trying to catch people violating the GFSZA. They COULD but they don't. But in BOTH cases, if something goes sideways, the presence of a firearm could be an issue. People did occasionally get in trouble for possessing handguns in TX back in those days. And as we see in this case the feds will prosecute GFSZ firearm possession cases in some circumstances. Simply knowing that fact is probably enough to keep most people out of trouble.

If Metcalf had known the law, he almost certainly wouldn't be in the pickle he is. Similarly, a person who transports firearms through GFSZs and knows the laws can take precautions to comply with the law, or, at the very least, can be careful not to self-incriminate. For example, if a person were buying a firearm from a gun store in a GFSZ and didn't have a qualifying license that covers the gun in question, it wouldn't be smart to take a selfie standing on the public sidewalk outside the store with the gun and post in on social media.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I understand what you are saying and where you are going, but your premise is flawed. Just because it's hard to comply with a law doesn't mean that the law doesn't restrict what it says it restricts. Just because enforcement for a particular crime is rare or even almost non-existent doesn't mean that there's no law against it or that the law must be interpreted differently due to the level of enforcement.

For years, in TX (before the initial CHL bill passed), if you bought a handgun, per state law there was no clear way to get it home legally. There were some exceptions in the law for things like traveling and going to sporting events that involved that particular type of handgun, but the way the law was written, you were technically breaking the law as soon as you left the store's property and were still in violation until you got home. The handgun had to be locked up and unloaded or you were in violation. And no, there were no FFLs denied in TX because it was very tricky to get a handgun home from the store without breaking the law.

The issue then and in this case is enforcement. The cops weren't standing around outside TX stores that sold firearms waiting to arrest people who bought handguns--they COULD have but they didn't. The feds aren't staking out school zones trying to catch people violating the GFSZA. They COULD but they don't. But in BOTH cases, if something goes sideways, the presence of a firearm could be an issue. People did occasionally get in trouble for possessing handguns in TX back in those days. And as we see in this case the feds will prosecute GFSZ firearm possession cases in some circumstances. Simply knowing that fact is probably enough to keep most people out of trouble.

If Metcalf had known the law, he almost certainly wouldn't be in the pickle he is. Similarly, a person who transports firearms through GFSZs and knows the laws can take precautions to comply with the law, or, at the very least, can be careful not to self-incriminate. For example, if a person were buying a firearm from a gun store in a GFSZ and didn't have a qualifying license that covers the gun in question, it wouldn't be smart to take a selfie standing on the public sidewalk outside the store with the gun and post in on social media.

I made that specific comment in response to the dogtown Tom's statement that all operations at the FFL in question were automatically a GFSZ exception due to them occuring on private property. His statement is still false and not applicable to this location.

The next time I meet with the ATF I will ask them about this topic.

 

[JohnKSa]

You are trying to prove that the GFSZA doesn't say what it says it says and attempting to do so by proving that people violate the law regularly, that it's difficult to comply with the law (and giving examples) and by noting that enforcement is uncommon. None of your assertions or examples prove that the GFSZA doesn't say what it says it says.

As far as your specific assertions, private property is, indeed, an exception to the GFSZA, so anything that takes place actually on the FFL's property is covered by an explicit GFSZA exception. If you're talking about people coming to and from the FFL, then my response is relevant. Just because it's hard to comply with a law and/or enforcement is sparse doesn't mean the law says something other than what it says. The TX law restricting handgun possession in public lasted for over 100 years--creating a situation where it was difficult to legally possess a handgun off of private property. And yet people still bought handguns moved them around. A few people got in trouble, but the vast majority of people who violated the law did not.

 

[.455_Hunter]

You are trying to prove that the GFSZA doesn't say what it says it says and attempting to do so by proving that people violate the law regularly, that it's difficult to comply with the law (and giving examples) and by noting that enforcement is uncommon. None of your assertions or examples prove that the GFSZA doesn't say what it says it says.

As far as your specific assertions, private property is, indeed, an exception to the GFSZA, so anything that takes place actually on the FFL's property is covered by an explicit GFSZA exception. If you're talking about people coming to and from the FFL, then my response is relevant. Just because it's hard to comply with a law and/or enforcement is sparse doesn't mean the law says something other than what it says. The TX law restricting handgun possession in public lasted for over 100 years--creating a situation where it was difficult to legally possess a handgun off of private property. And yet people still bought handguns moved them around. A few people got in trouble, but the vast majority of people who violated the law did not.

Nope- I am not to "prove" anything, other than stating the FACTS about how a certain FFL and it's customers are forced to operate within a known GFSZ. I am not making any inferences or suggesting individuals willfully violate the law. We are having a discussion, which is the point of forums- it's not a one way exchange of information. Like I said, I am going to get the ATFs viewpoint on the topic of "generic FFLs operating in a GFSZ and how it impacts customers" when I meet with them next time and post what they say.

 

[dogtown tom]

I made that specific comment in response to the dogtown Tom's statement that all operations at the FFL in question were automatically a GFSZ exception due to them occuring on private property. His statement is still false and not applicable to this location.

The next time I meet with the ATF I will ask them about this topic.

Then prove me wrong.
Show us where the GFSZ Act applies to private property.

 

[dogtown tom]

Nope- I am not to "prove" anything, other than stating the FACTS

Well, show us the FACTS. Show us where the GFSZ Act prohibits firearm possession on private property.

about how a certain FFL and it's customers are forced to operate within a known GFSZ.

No one forces any FFL to operate anywhere, anyplace. It's his decision on where he operates.

I am not making any inferences or suggesting individuals willfully violate the law. We are having a discussion, which is the point of forums- it's not a one way exchange of information. Like I said, I am going to get the ATFs viewpoint on the topic of "generic FFLs operating in a GFSZ and how it impacts customers" when I meet with them next time and post what they say.

They'll likely tell you what they told me in 2008. Two weeks before my FFL arrived in the mail.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I am going to summarize the situation because the quoting/requoting process on this forum can cause confusion.

Real FFL X is situated 150 feet from a high school's student parking lot. They have been in operation since the 70's in a nearly 150 year old building. They have private parking, but to access it, you must walk on a public sidewalk and down a public alley to enter the small lot behind the building. Any deliveries must also cross said public side walk to enter the building. It is impossible to comply with the GFSZ requirements for both patrons and deliveries/pick-ups in this scenario, even though the shop ITSELF is on private property and excluded from enforcement. Hopefully that makes things clearer on why this dealer location is somewhat distinctive- it's not your typical pull into the front parking lot and walk in the front door (or vice versa), all while safely on private property.

 

[JohnKSa]

Real FFL X is situated 150 feet from a high school's student parking lot.

Not an issue because they are located on private property which is an explicit exception to the GFSZA.

They have private parking, but to access it, you must walk on a public sidewalk and down a public alley to enter the small lot behind the building. Any deliveries must also cross said public side walk to enter the building. It is impossible to comply with the GFSZ requirements for both patrons and deliveries/pick-ups in this scenario, even though the shop ITSELF is on private property and excluded from enforcement.

1. It doesn't really make it "impossible". A person could still unload and lock a firearm in a container which would satisfy one of the three GFSZA exceptions.

2. As far as the deliveries go, delivery personnel are not considered to have legal possession of the items that are inside the containers they move and deliver. I had a friend with a C&R who ordered an NFA item and had it shipped directly to his house (after all the paperwork cleared, of course). Obviously, all the people who handled that package during the shipping process did not violate the law against possessing an NFA item without the proper paperwork. Another way we can tell that the persons involved in delivery/shipping are not in legal possession of the firearms inside the containers is that FFLs are allowed to turn over packages containing firearms to shipping personnel/USPS employees without making them fill out a 4473 and undergo a NICS. If it were actually a transfer of possession, the FFL would be in violation of federal law for transferring possession of a firearm without following the proper procedures. It is also legal to ship certain classified materials through the mail even though the persons handling those packages will not have the proper clearance to possess the materials contained in the packages.

3. The fact that a law is difficult to comply with doesn't make the law invalid or even call its validity into question. Even if all your assertions were correct, it would not prove anything.

Finally, if you're going to ask the BATF the question, I'm going to strongly suggest that it would be best to do so in a hypothetical manner rather than bringing this specific business and its customers to their attention.

 

[dogtown tom]

I am going to summarize the situation because the quoting/requoting process on this forum can cause confusion.

Real FFL X is situated 150 feet from a high school's student parking lot. They have been in operation since the 70's in a nearly 150 year old building. They have private parking, but to access it, you must walk on a public sidewalk and down a public alley to enter the small lot behind the building. Any deliveries must also cross said public side walk to enter the building. It is impossible to comply with the GFSZ requirements for both patrons and deliveries/pick-ups in this scenario, even though the shop ITSELF is on private property and excluded from enforcement. Hopefully that makes things clearer on why this dealer location is somewhat distinctive- it's not your typical pull into the front parking lot and walk in the front door (or vice versa), all while safely on private property.

See that part in bold ? What does that have to do with the FFL? He's operating legally.
ATF has no authority over violations of the GFSZ Act. They will merely notify the licensee of that law.

 

[CherokeeGunslinger]

Publicly and repeatedly violating a law is stupid. Requesting that federal agents contact you and then giving them all the evidence, over the phone, that they need to arrest you is stupid.

If you are going to make a repeated and public nuisance of yourself, you'd better make sure you know ALL the applicable laws and make sure you don't violate any of them. If you don't, you're behaving like an idiot. If you behave like an idiot, you can expect to be called an idiot. I'm not in favor of the GFSZA, by any means, but that doesn't make what Metcalf did any smarter.

It should also be noted that the GFSZA was intended to be applied against gang members and drug dealers, not ordinary citizens who are otherwise not committing any crimes.

While the GFSZA can be applied against private citizens of any kind as written, you have to do something that puts yourself on federal LE radar to have it used against you. All of the GFSZA prosecutions I've read about have been against those committing felonies or carrying into school buildings. Metcalf's prosecution is the first I've read about where a non-felon got hemmed up.

 

[JohnKSa]

It should also be noted that the GFSZA was intended to be applied against gang members and drug dealers, not ordinary citizens who are otherwise not committing any crimes.

Yup, just like the TX law I mentioned against carrying pistols, passed right after the Civil War when the TX legislature reconvened after the emancipation proclamation, was intended to keep freed slaves from carrying pistols--it wasn't meant to be applied to white people. That's why it looked like it was essentially impossible to carry a pistol legally--even to take it back home after you bought it. It was intended to make it very easy to prosecute any black person caught with a pistol. But it came to be applied to everyone when selective enforcement was no longer possible. Or, at least, the possibility of it being enforced against everyone became too real to ignore.

I agree that in this situation, knowledge is really all that's important. It is not that likely that this would become an issue in the first place, and if a person knows that the potential for a bad situation exists, they can easily take steps to make sure it doesn't become a problem.

 

[bdickens]

What if a person's vehicle is parked on the street in front of their home and they have to cross that sidewalk?

Maybe don't act like an assclown....